http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
--- Comment #16 from Ray Donnelly 2013-01-16
07:59:48 UTC ---
Of course, when I wrote '--enable-plugins' I really mean't *not* passing
--disable-plugin (without the 's').
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56000
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-16 08:08:33
UTC ---
Does this help?
http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2012/msg00279.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
08:11:42 UTC ---
Merging of target attribute is what gcc/g++ did though, the function would get
then both target attributes (seems later decl's target wins), and the first
target attribute in D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55301
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55984
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16 08:31:21 UTC ---
The patch in comment 4 fails on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_type_24.f90 -O (test for errors, line 48)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55301
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16 08:30:05 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Wed Jan 16 08:29:54 2013
New Revision: 195230
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195230
Log:
PR target/55301
* config/sh/sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55301
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55940
--- Comment #15 from Frank Mehnert 2013-01-16
09:01:02 UTC ---
Great, thank you Jakub!
As it will take some time until the Linux distributions will update their gcc
binaries to include this fix, do you have any suggestion how to work ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52688
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55940
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
09:16:15 UTC ---
As a workaround, you can use something like
#if __GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ == 7
__attribute__((__optimize__ ("no-shrink-wrap")))
#endif
on the VBoxHost_RTR0MemObjGetPage
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55043
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-16
09:20:43 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 16 09:20:34 2013
New Revision: 195231
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195231
Log:
PR libstdc++/55043
* include/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55882
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener 2013-01-16
09:26:11 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 16 09:26:05 2013
New Revision: 195232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195232
Log:
2013-01-16 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55043
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] issue |[4.7 Regression] issue with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55043
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55043
--- Comment #25 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-16 09:43:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> That really feels like a hack.
It is also broken, I think. The P/R has the effect that is_copy_constructible
is now out-of-sync with is_constructible, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-16 09:51:45
UTC ---
Created attachment 29176
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29176
Patch for using recursive copy for directories.
AFAIU we are talking about libada only here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55999
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55999
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at vnet dot ibm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55997
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener 2013-01-16
10:07:07 UTC ---
While generating a PCH ... ugh.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-16
10:14:03 UTC ---
Btw, the mapping I see on my PPC linux box ends with 0x1000
(with ASLR off)
ffd-1000 rw-p 00:00 0 [stack]
(with ASLR on)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55043
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-16
10:25:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> That really feels like a hack.
It is a hack, to work around a throwing move ctor that I don't have time to
fix.
> Anyone using boost::is_cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56001
Bug #: 56001
Summary: [4.7.3 regression] relocation truncated to fit:
R_PPC_REL24 breaks bootstrap on powerpc64-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
10:38:01 UTC ---
Sounds like a recent change:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git;a=commitdiff;h=048ee0993ec8360abb0b51bdf8f8721e9ed62ec4
The question is what to do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
10:47:18 UTC ---
BTW, does Fortran have well defined number of iterations if say a do loop goes
from (unknown to compiler):
integer :: i, m, n
m = huge(0) - 7
n = huge(0) - 2
do i =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55043
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-16
10:52:57 UTC ---
Actually, now that the unordered containers do not inherit from Hashtable it
should be much easier to implement something like comment 17. When Daniel first
suggested it I thought
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
11:22:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 29177
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29177
gcc48-pr50176.patch
Are you sure about it? For me on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55153
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
11:31:51 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Jan 15 16:47:36 2013
New Revision: 195211
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195211
Log:
2013-01-15 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |asan does not work with 46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
11:50:47 UTC ---
I think for 44->46 bits we can still make it constant. But generally, the
constructors of libasan are usually run from the stack of the initial thread,
so it should be enough t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-16
11:54:36 UTC ---
Sounds good for both.
Andreas, could you please try replacing
kHighMemEnd = 0x0fffUL
with
kHighMemEnd = 0x3fffUL
and see if it helps?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
11:59:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 29178
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29178
gcc48-pr52865.patch
This untested patch makes the loop vectorizable.
Not sure if it is be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
Bug #: 56002
Summary: [mutex] allow generic classes to be used without
requiring plattform support for threads
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #54 from Richard Biener 2013-01-16
12:36:52 UTC ---
Re-confirmed on trunk. The initial GFortran IL is still ... awkward. Apart
from the issue of using a canonicalized IV at all we have
D.1910 = i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3713
--- Comment #29 from Michael van der Kolff
2013-01-16 12:38:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 29180
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29180
testcase for member function pointer that isn't inlined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3713
Michael van der Kolff changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mvanderkolff at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55273
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-16
13:17:30 UTC ---
OK, the problem is that the "induction" variable here is not normal induction
variable but handed by xor.
PPC target seems to be only that translates (flags & 0x8000)
into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-16
13:18:51 UTC ---
Well, we slipped the 4.8 window :( But I will make the patch soon so it goes
into early 4.9 at least.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55983
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16 13:30:42 UTC ---
Further reduced test case:
type :: mpdata_t
class(bcd_t), pointer :: bcx, bcy
end type
type(mpdata_t) :: this
call this%bcx%fill_halos()
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56003
Bug #: 56003
Summary: SCEV should thread flags ^= 0x8000 as an addition
to discover an IV var.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener 2013-01-16
13:57:53 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 16 13:57:48 2013
New Revision: 195238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195238
Log:
2013-01-16 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53465
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener 2013-01-16
13:57:54 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 16 13:57:48 2013
New Revision: 195238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195238
Log:
2013-01-16 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55964
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-01-16
14:07:03 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 16 14:06:58 2013
New Revision: 195239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195239
Log:
2013-01-16 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3713
--- Comment #31 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-16
14:20:46 UTC ---
Well, after early optimizations we get:
int main() ()
{
struct Foo x;
void Foo:: (const struct Foo *) * iftmp.0;
long int _3;
long int _4;
int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) ()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55964
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56004
Bug #: 56004
Summary: Possible bug with decltype and access modifer order
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56005
Bug #: 56005
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr45352.c
(internal compiler error)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56005
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56005
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* i686-*-* |x86_64-*-* i686-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #24 from Jason Merrill 2013-01-16
15:53:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Merging of target attribute is what gcc/g++ did though, the function would get
> then both target attributes (seems later decl's target wins), and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
16:02:35 UTC ---
The actual merging of target attribute isn't that important, what would be more
important is that other attributes are merged together in that case and the
decls treated as the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #26 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com 2013-01-16 16:05:01 UTC ---
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
>
> --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
16:05:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 16 16:05:27 2013
New Revision: 195241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195241
Log:
PR fortran/52865
* trans-stmt.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56004
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-16
16:19:33 UTC ---
As was explained on stackoverflow, this has nothing t odo with access
modifiers, as you can easily demonstrate by making everything public.
_t has not been declared at the p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55884
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 2013-01-16
16:19:42 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jan 16 16:19:32 2013
New Revision: 195242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195242
Log:
gcc/fortran/
2013-01-16 Jakub Jeline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56000
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2013-01-16 16:24:47 UTC ---
On 1/16/2013 3:08 AM, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56000
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-16
> 08:08:3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56006
Bug #: 56006
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Many guality testsuite failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
16:31:10 UTC ---
Ah, hjl opened PR56006 to track #c11.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55884
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55995
--- Comment #2 from Janis Johnson 2013-01-16
16:38:24 UTC ---
Interesting, it causes the compiler to segfault on both arm-none-eabi and
powerpc-none-eabi:
/scratch/janisjo/build6/fsf-arm-eabi/src/gcc-mainline/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56005
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-01-16
16:39:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55153#c4
> Let's close PR55153 as fixed and keep this PR to track the regression the fix
> caused.
,
||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #44 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-16 16:40:36
UTC ---
Still the same old story...
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.8.0 20130116 (experimental) [trunk revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56004
--- Comment #2 from David Irvine 2013-01-16
16:40:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> As was explained on stackoverflow, this has nothing t odo with access
> modifiers, as you can easily demonstrate by making everything public.
>
> _t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55995
Sharad Singhai changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007
Bug #: 56007
Summary: Remarkably bad error message with DO array=1,2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #27 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-16
17:20:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
> >
> > --- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #28 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-16
17:25:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> The actual merging of target attribute isn't that important, what would be
> more
> important is that other attributes are merged together in tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #171 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-16
17:25:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29182
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29182
Patch to compress line info
This patch removes column information from LTO (so we lose carr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56004
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-16
17:30:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > As was explained on stackoverflow, this has nothing t odo with access
> > modifiers, as you can easily demonstrate by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
--- Comment #6 from Fanael 2013-01-16 18:15:25 UTC
---
Oh right. Works for me too. I should've tested it more thoroughly first.
Sorry for bothering you guys.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56004
--- Comment #4 from David Irvine 2013-01-16
18:16:58 UTC ---
I see
In my case in a simpler version than posted
this compiles fine
template
class Synchronised {
public:
Synchronised(T t = T{}) : t_{t} {}
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56004
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56005
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-01-16
18:28:04 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jan 16 18:27:58 2013
New Revision: 195247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195247
Log:
2013-01-16 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41557
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andris.pavenis at iki dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56005
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55433
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-01-16
18:44:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This bug is still present and "biting me" as of r195176.
> Is there anything I can do to help make some progress on this?
>
I managed to reproduc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54622
--- Comment #8 from Janis Johnson 2013-01-16
18:50:06 UTC ---
Author: janis
Date: Wed Jan 16 18:49:57 2013
New Revision: 195249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195249
Log:
PR testsuite/54622
* lib/target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55994
--- Comment #5 from Janis Johnson 2013-01-16
18:52:56 UTC ---
Author: janis
Date: Wed Jan 16 18:52:51 2013
New Revision: 195250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195250
Log:
PR testsuite/55994
* gcc.c-tort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41557
--- Comment #3 from Andris Pavenis 2013-01-16
18:57:42 UTC ---
I also verified that I have already mostly applied a patch sent to gcc-bugs
recently (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2013-01/msg01142.html) already for my
builds, except of cou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56001
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-16 19:04:34
UTC ---
Is your toolchain using BSS PLT?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56006
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-16
19:06:09 UTC ---
The second patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00822.html
(which is waiting for Uros' bootstrap/regtest on alpha AFAIK) seems to fix
these regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-16 19:12:01
UTC ---
-FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/global-overflow-1.c -O0 output pattern test, is
==9876== AddressSanitizer CHECK failed:
../../../../../gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_thread.cc:74
"((Ad
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
